佛蘭德社會住房的未來外文翻譯-中英文論文對照翻譯

中文2890本科畢業(yè)設(shè)計(jì)（論文）外文翻原文：ThefutureofFlemishsocialhousing1.AbstractBelgiansocialhousinghasahistoryofmorethan100years.Since1980housingpolicybelongstheresponsibilitiesoftheregions.InthiswelookatsocialhousingFlanders，thelargestthethreeBelgianregions.ComparedtoEuropeancountriestheshareofsocialhousinginhousingstock(5.6%)inFlandersislimited.Socialhousingissuppliedmainlyprivateorganizations，whichworkwithinarathertightregulatorysystem.InvestmentsarelargelysubsidisedbytheFlemishgovernment.Thesocialhousingsupplyismainlytargetedtowardslowerincomehouseholds，whichpayincome-dependentrents.ThisstartswithadescriptionofdefinitionsandmodelsthethesocialhousingsectorischaracterizeduntilnowbriefhistoricalofsocialhousinginBelgiumFlandersisgiven，thecurrentdebateonsocialinFlandersisbrieflydescribed

andrecentfiguresontheprofileofFlemishsocialhousingarepresented.InanextsectiontheFlemishsocialrentedsectorispositionedinternationalcontext.Thearticleendswithdiscussionofoptions.ThiscontributionislargelybasedonaresearchcarriedoutfortheFlemishgovernmentfirstof2005.ThereasonbehindthestudywasintentionoftheMinisterofHousingreformregulatoryframeworkofFlemishsocialhousing.TheresearcherswereaskedtoadvisetheMinisterconcerningdemarcationofthegroupthesystem，rentsettinganddegreeautonomyregardingrentsettingandallocation.CompleteresultsofthestudyareavailableinWintersetal.(2007).2.ModelsofsocialhousingThe?socialhousing

coversawiderangeofinitiativeswithinEuropeaimedatgoodquality，affordablehousing.Muchhasbeenwrittenintheliteratureabouttheneedanddefinitionofsocialhousing.Maclennanand(1997)claimthatsocialhousingneededwhenthesociallydesiredneedsforhousingexceedtheeffectivelydesireddemandforhousing.Ingeneral，itagreedthatthismeansaffordablehousingforvulnerablegroups.Afurthersearchoftheliteratureproducesvariousdefinitionsofsocialhousing(see，for，Oxley2000).Whatnoticeableisthat

viewsarefarfromunanimous.Thus，example，socialhousingcanrefertobothrentingandpurchasing.unchangeablerealitythecity-stateareneverthelessitslimitationsofonly700squarekilometres,asaresultofwhichthepublichousingshigh-densityhigh-riseislikelytoberetained.Yet,thisformissustainablegivenitsinherentpopularityandestablishedfamiliarity.Theownerofhomesbeaorprivateownerandbelookingtomakeaprofitinhisbusiness，ornot.Moreover，theaffordabilityhousingcanarrangedbysupplysubsidiesaswelldemandsubsidies.Intheremainderofthisarticlethefollowingdefinition:allrentaldwellingsallocatedneednotbymarketmechanisms.Socialhousinghasdifferentshapesindifferentcountries；socialhousingasauniversalisticandasafetynetmodelaredistinguishedforexample.Withintheuniversalisticmodeladifferencebebetweensocialhousingasforandhousingall(Czischke；Whitehead2007).Ghekie`re(2007)providesaforsocialhousinginEurope.Hedistinguishesthreeconcept.Theistheresidualconceptstrivingtocopewithaclearlyoutlinedsocialdemandthatisrestrictedtothemostdisadvantagedpersonswhogenerallyfromhousingmarketcharacterizedbyastrongpredominanceofhomeowner

occupationandregulatedrentalmarket.Theisthegeneralistconcept.Globalisationhasfurtheraffectedthesentimentsgovernmentstowardstheglobalmarketandinducedthemtomoderniseinstitutionalarrangementsinordertobeabletocompeteintheglobaleconomicenvironment.Thisimpliestargetingasocialdemandbuttoalargerextentofpublicinterventionconceptimpactthehousingnamelyintermsofpriceandquality.Thelastconcepttheuniversalone.Thisconceptintendedtothehousingsupplytheentirepopulationwithbothacomplementaryofferwhatthemarketprovidestheregulationofentirehousingmarket.3.TheFlemishSocialRentedSectorInanInternationalPerspectiveHowtheFlemishsocialrentalsectorcomparetosocialrentinginothercountries?ThissectiondescribesFlandersinaninternationalperspectivebycomparingitwithfiveothercountriessomeofthemwithsmallsocialrentalsectors(Ireland，SpainandGermany)，otherswithlargersectorandNetherlands)(seeWintersetal.2007).Theaimdescribedifferentofsocialrentalinthese，searchingthedifferencessignsofandunitarymodels.

IntheNetherlandsandtheUKsocialrentedsectoroccupiesalargermarketshare，and20%ofthehousingasshowninTable1.Inboth，weseetrendtowardsadeclineinsocialdwellingsthegovernment.IntheNetherlands，themunicipalhousinghavevirtuallydisappeared，inUK，thenumberofRSLs(registeredlandlords)isgraduallyincreasing.Thesecurrentlymanage6%theUKhousingstock.OnedifferencebetweentheUKandNetherlandsisthatthesocialrentedsectorsafetyfunctionintheformercase，inlatter，itaccessibletotargetgroups.InSpainGermanyandIrelandasFlandersthesocialrentedsectorismodestin，varyingbetweenand9%.Howevermajordifferencesexistbetweenthesocialrentedsectorsinthesecountries.InGermanyandSpain，dynamicrentedexists，ismanagedprivatelandlords.Dwellingsarebuiltwithasubsidykeptaffordableforacertainperiodandtheyarealsosubjectofdwellingallocationrules.Attheendofthis，thesedwellingsarefree.InIrelandthesocialrentedsectorfunctionofasocialsafetynetandthesectorisownedbylocalauthorities.ThesocialrentedinNetherlandshasan

unclear；onhandamaximumincomecriterionappliesontheotherhandpriorityrulesapplytoweakgroups.4.HousingpolicyTheformationhousingfromthediscussiondocumentsofNationalHousingForumof1992throughtorecentBills，showsaconsistentfromaholisticapproachthemanyneedsofpreviouslymarginalisedofcountrytoarigidandbureaucraticsetofframeworks.TheRDPsuggestsanintegratedvisionforupliftmentofpeoplewhereasHousingWhitePaperofwhich，itincludesreferencetothesemanyfactors，environmental，servicing，jobcreation，educationotherfacilities),essentiallyfocusesonsinglemeasurableobjectiveofprovidingonemillionhousesinfiveyears.Questionablethisisthemeasureof"house"，givenprovisohousingdeliverybeincremental，andthat:"OnlyaStatesubsidycontributiontowardsthecostofahouseispossible"(DepartmentofHousing1994:20).ItisdebatablewhethertheshiftinpolicyfromRDPtheHousingWhitePaperreflectsdifferencesinpolicyoveralldirectiontakenbygovernmentandbytheDepartment，orwhetherthelogisticsoftheRDPweresubsequentlyreviewedlightoffiscalrestraint.Whicheverinterpretation

isaccuratetheconsequencesmustseenasunrealisableofexpectations，bothbeneficiariesandtheemploymentsectors.5．MarketMarketisregardedasoldestco-ordinationmechanism.Itcreatescompetitionamongproducerstousetheresourcesinefficientinordertoproducethecheapestgoodsofthesamestandards.Italsoarguedmarketmechanismcanachieveequityamongdifferentbuyersandsellers.“Themarketisanimpersonallikeakinaneconomicwithwinnersandlosers，whoseoutcomebegoodorbad，butneverjustunjust”(Barrp.46).InVeljanovskisthejusticeofthemarketshouldrefertotheopportunitynotofoutcomes.“Inmarketisofferedtheopportunitiestoachievehisorobjectives，notmeanthateveryoneshouldbeguaranteedasuccessinachievinghisorgoals”(Veljanovski，1987).Itisbelievedthatthemostimportantadvantagesofmarketmechanismliethevirtuescompetitionandanidealisedpatternofexchangeandincentives(Peters，1996).Thedifficultiestheand1980sforcedpeopletorelationshipmarket.Itacceleratedaradicalmoveinterventionisttackletheproblemswhichwerebelievedtobyover-intervention

thestate.Marketsagaincametobeseenasthemostefficientmeansoforganisingsocieties.Stateinterventionwasthoughtdothangood(Boyer，1996).Thisledtoasurgeofreformsalltheworldinbothdevelopedanddevelopingcountries，marketplannedeconomies.Globalisationfurtheraffectedsentimentsoftheglobalmarketandinducedthemtomoderniseinstitutionalarrangementsinordertobeabletocompeteintheglobaleconomicenvironment.Thesecombinedfactorsledtotheintrendsinhousinggovernancearoundworldin1990sandonwards.6.DiscussionFlemishhousingtodaycannotbesimplypigeon-holedintooneofthemodels.TheresultpresentedprovidesupportforclassificationGhekie`re(2007):theFlemishsocialrentalsectorisstillamodelbutcurrentdevelopmentscanbeseenasashifttowardstheresidualmodel.Workunitshousingonthemarketatmarketthensellittheiremployeesatdiscountprices.Thisgeneratesgreatincentivesforemployeestobuycommercialhousingtheirworkunits.Workunitspaythepricebetweenmarketvalueanddiscountpricegapalsorepresentsanadditionalemployeesatexpenseoftheunits.involvementofworkunitsasmediatorsalso

drivesdeveloperstobuildhigh-standardhousing.Thepriorityrulingforweaktenantspointinthisdirectionthecentralsupervisionallocationandtheprioritytohomeownershiparesignsforsuchmodel.Ontheotherhandthereareclearsignsofbeaunitaryorgeneralmodel.Thesurveyresultsthesocialrentalsectorisrelativelygoodqualityappreciatedbythetenants，evenbetterthentheprivaterentalsector.FinallytheFlemishsocialsectorisnotasafetynettargetingprimarilythemostvulnerablepeople.7.EpilogItwouldappearfromaboveresearch，thatareasneedofthemostimmediateattentionareforaintegratedapproachtodualimperativesofshelter，andsustainablejobcreationandempowermentinbuildingindustry.Thisneedstobereflectedbothshapingandimplementationofpolicyatalllevelsofgovernment，andthroughafeedbacksystemwhichacknowledgestheexperienceandperceptionsofotherkeyrole-players.Thesupportthecommitmentofsuchprivatesectororganisationsinfulfillingthebroaderobjectivesofthereconstructionprogrammeshouldgreaternurturingbypolicymakersiftheirinvaluablecontributiontobecontinued.

Likewisegreaterexchangeofexperienceandtechniquesbetweenprivatesectorrole-playerspolicymakers，academicsandbeneficiariesshouldbeencouragedthroughthefacilitationofpublicationdiscussionshouldbegiventhesupportandpublicitythatgiveshighprofileaccessibilitytovariousareasofdebateiftheproblemsarenotto，ashascharacterisedthesefieldsoverthelast25yearsandmore.Source:SIENandWINTERS,OPENACCESS:ThefutureofFlemishsocialhousing(2008)23:215–譯文佛蘭社會房的來1.簡介比利時的社會保障住房建設(shè)已經(jīng)超過一百年的歷史，它引領(lǐng)了80年代以來的房屋政策改革。在這篇文章中，我們將領(lǐng)略作為比利時三個人口最多的城市之一的佛蘭德，所帶給我們的社會保障性住房的未來。相對于許多歐洲國家，社會保障性住房的存量在佛蘭德是有限的（5.6％）。社會住房供給主要由私人在相當(dāng)嚴(yán)格的監(jiān)管制度組織。投資方主要是佛蘭德政府。社會住房供應(yīng)對象主要是低收入家庭，和生活在低價廉租房的居民。

本文首先描述了不同定義下社會保障住房模式，以及比利時和佛蘭德社會住房政策的歷史回顧，給出當(dāng)前在佛蘭德社會住房現(xiàn)狀的簡要說明。文章結(jié)尾的進(jìn)行了政策選擇的討論。文章研究的背景原因是該地區(qū)的房屋部長的意圖改革佛拉德社會住房的監(jiān)管架構(gòu)，研究人員要求劃分，確定分配制度，以及有關(guān)廉租房租金的確認(rèn)。完成的研究結(jié)果由溫特斯等人提供。2.社會住房模型社會福利性住房一詞涵蓋了在歐洲范圍內(nèi)普遍的住房保障舉措，目的是提供良好品質(zhì)，負(fù)擔(dān)得起的住房。也就是很多人在文獻(xiàn)中提到的經(jīng)濟(jì)適用房。麥克倫南多（1997）聲稱，社會住房是必要的，特別是房屋的需求超過了社會需要的有效需求預(yù)期。一般來說，社會住房意味著是弱勢群體可以負(fù)擔(dān)得起的住房。對文獻(xiàn)進(jìn)一步找時（見各種定義，例如，奧克斯利2000年）尤為引注目的是，許多人的觀點(diǎn)奇的一致。例如，可以參照社會住房租賃和購買兩種。這些業(yè)主房子可以是公共或人業(yè)主，如果尋求的是房屋的投資管理，這樣是錯誤的做法。此外，居民的住房支付能力，政府可以安排提供購房補(bǔ)貼。在本文的其余部分我們認(rèn)以下定義：所有出租住房的分配和需要不能由市場機(jī)制進(jìn)行分配）。

為社會住房在不同國家有不同的類型，作為一個普遍性的社會住房和安全網(wǎng)模型都是杰出的例子。但在普遍性模型上也是有差別的，歌特2007年在歐洲為社會供了一個住房類型。區(qū)分了三種概念。首先是取剩余的供給以應(yīng)付社會的需求，他清楚地說明這是僅限于最弱勢的群體之間。其二，以社會需求為目標(biāo)，并在一個更大的公共干預(yù)的程度把握

房屋的價格和質(zhì)量。這個概念的目的是保證提供既具有互補(bǔ)性，為整個住房市場供應(yīng)完善的保障體系，并對整個房地產(chǎn)進(jìn)行市場調(diào)控。3.佛拉德社會廉租房的國際視野如何比較佛拉德社會出租業(yè)比較其他國家的社會租房？本節(jié)描述在國際視野比較5孩子佛蘭德斯其他國家，其中一些小型社會（愛爾蘭，西班牙和德國租賃業(yè)多），較大的部（英國和荷蘭）（見溫特等人2007年等。這樣做的目的是描述在這些國家的社會租房部門不同的特點(diǎn)，為搜索差異和雙和單一模式跡象提供解讀。在荷蘭和英國會出租行業(yè)中占有較大的市場份額即％和20％的住房是社會出租房。在這兩個國家，我們看到了的趨勢，在社會出租住房由政府擁有的降。在荷蘭，市政住公司已經(jīng)基本上消失了，在英國，數(shù)的的RSL（注冊社會地主）正在逐步增加。目前這些管理英國房屋6％的股份英和荷蘭房屋租之間的一個區(qū)別是前者是社部門在履行安全網(wǎng)功能，后者社會部門是溝通眾多目標(biāo)群體的橋梁。在西班牙，德國和愛爾蘭，在佛蘭德，社會出租行業(yè)是溫和范圍，不同的3％和。不過，主要的社會之間存在分歧租用這些國家的部門。在德國和西班牙一個充滿活力的社會租業(yè)存在，這是由私人業(yè)管理。住房是建立并保持與補(bǔ)貼一段時間，他們也負(fù)擔(dān)得起的住房的分配規(guī)則的主體。在這一時期結(jié)束時，這些住宅都是免費(fèi)的。在愛爾蘭滿足了社會出租業(yè)社會安全網(wǎng)和國有部門的職能是由地方當(dāng)局。社會租用荷蘭部門不明確性；一方面最大收入標(biāo)準(zhǔn)適用，另一方面優(yōu)先權(quán)則適用于弱勢群體。

4.房屋政策解讀從年“國家房屋論壇”的討論文件到最近的法案，房屋政策的形成過程顯示出：針對之前處在次要地位的國家房屋的全面解決方案和僵化的、官僚的現(xiàn)框架模式，政策都作了快速持續(xù)的改善?！爸嘏c發(fā)展項(xiàng)目（RDP）”提出要為了振奮人心的綜